First time posting, and I couldn't seem to find this topic on the forum.

I am concerned about the D800's whopping 36megapixel files (as many of you probably are). As a wedding photographer, I get about 500-1000 shots depending on the length of the shoot.

My iMac can handle quite a bit, but I'd like to make editing as fast as possible (we all know how time consuming it can be).

I've always shot LOSSLESS COMPRESSED 14bit files on my D7000 (didn't find uncompressed). With the D800 files bordering 75MB each, is there a difference in image quality/speed between lossless compressed and uncompressed? I've read mixed reviews, and just wanted to get your opinion. My focus is to limit file size and editing time, while maintaining the highest quality possible. However I will sacrifice editing time if the process degrades image quality.

Processing compressed files always requires more computing time. The higher the compression rate of the used algorithm is the more computing time is needed.
There is no difference in image quality between lossless compressed and uncompressed files otherwise it wouldn't be lossless. It's the same effect like packing the image to a zip file and unzipping it. You always get the original data back. I cannot estimate how much additional time decompressing the image costs. However I think during editing in photoshop or any other software you will only notice a little difference when the file is opened/loaded but not during editing. I think the most software will cache the file uncompressed in ram.

When I will get my D800 someday I will shoot 14bit raw lossless compressed in order to minimize the file size with the best quality. You cannot minimize both processing time and file size.

I would have always thought that the larger the file, the longer the post processing time, but I can see where you're going with the time it takes to decompress the file back to it's original state. With Lightroom, I wonder how long that will take because it's thumbnail based, and there are hundreds of previews to look at instead of working on one image like in Photoshop.

Space is important, as I don't feel like buying 64GB cards. I'll probably grab a few 32 or 16gb cards around 400x. The Lexar ones come in a two pack for a decent price.

But then again, speed is also important. I don't feel like updating my entire computer (i'm already maxed on RAM). It's easier to just add a few extra drives.

Well, there will probably be a difference between 12 and 14 bit, and between compressed and lossless compressed, but I'm not sure how big the difference is going to be. When the reviews come out, I'm sure some people will say that it makes a big difference, and others who will say it makes no difference at all, and people who will say that it doesn't matter- you should always choose more data over less.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that you need to do your own testing to see if you can tell the difference, and if you care about it. If you do, I'd be interested to see what you find.

Exposure isn't an issue for me, but to have the option to pull some shadow or highlights in Lightroom is pretty important to me. You can't do any of that with Jpg, so if I can't do that with a compressed raw, I won't do it.

Using the Nikon D800 with a Lexar Pro 1000x 32GB compact flash card, I set the shooting menu to 14-bit lossless compressed RAW and get 400 shots, each about 45MB size. The camera writes to the card very fast! The SD card is a Lexar Pro 600x 64GB set for overflow and for any movies.

Just got my D800 and will be taking it to South Africa while on a field research project for 3 weeks - essentially a working safari without vehicles. I won't be able to download files until I return home, so card space is at a premium. I compared lossless vs. uncompressed and 12 bit vs. 14 bit and can't see a difference on my monitor, though I haven't tried printing. Since I won't have a use for a ton of cards when I return and they're still very expensive, I'm going with lossless 12 bit and use the SD card for overflow. I'll stay with lossless when I return but revert to 14 bit.

OK, a question was asked about a D800 and the sizes of the images with the various types of recording in RAW. So, there are six different types to shoot and I am asking what the file sizes are for the following.

"14 Bit" .........

"Lossless compressed".

"Compressed"

"Uncompressed"

"12 Bit" ..........

"Lossless Compressed"

"Compressed"

"Uncompressed"

Would someone with a D800 tell me the approximate file sizes for the above conditions? Thanks,

msmoto said:
OK, a question was asked about a D800 and the sizes of the images with the various types of recording in RAW. So, there are six different types to shoot and I am asking what the file sizes are for the following.

"14 Bit" .........

"Lossless compressed".

"Compressed"

"Uncompressed"

"12 Bit" ..........

"Lossless Compressed"

"Compressed"

"Uncompressed"

Would someone with a D800 tell me the approximate file sizes for the above conditions? Thanks,

I leave mine in 14bit. I changed it to 12 when I started shooting with it and decided to try it at 14. It didnt seem to make much difference in my computer editing time, so I left it at 14.

I cannot say I noticed a difference however I was not really looking at an image difference, just if it would make a noticeable difference in my editing time. I leave it at 14 for the same reason I leave it at 36MP.